USPTO Patents Application 09669680

United States Patent and Trademark Office

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office

Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov

APPLICATION NO.

FILING DATE

FIRST NAMED INVENTOR

ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.

09/669,680

28211

09/26/2000

7590

04/18/2005

FREDERICK W. GIBB, III
MCGINN & GIBB, PLLC
2568-A RIVA ROAD
SUITE 304

ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401

William Scott Spangler

ARC9-2000-0079US1

4795

EXAMINER

SCHLAIFER, JONATHAN D

ART UNIT

PAPER NUMBER

2178

DATE MAILED: 04/18/2005

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

PTO-90C (Rev. 10/03)

Office* Arfif\n Q i # m m a n/

Application No.

09/669,680

Applicant(s)

SPANGLER, WILLIAM SCOTT

Examiner

Jonathan D. Schlaifer

Art Unit

2178

- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address —
Period for Reply

A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) FROM
THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.

• Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.

- If the period for reply specified above is less than thirty (30) days, a reply within the statutory minimum of thirty (30) days will be considered timely.

- tf NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.

- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).

Status

1 )E3 Responsive to communication(s) filed on 14 February 2005 .
2a)D This action is FINAL. 2b)S This action is non-final.

3) D Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is

closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.

Disposition of Claims

4) K Claim(s) 1.3-8.10-23 and 25-29 is/are pending in the application.

4a) Of the above claim(s) is/are withdrawn from consideration.

5) D Claim(s) is/are allowed.

6) E3 Claim(s) 1.3-8.10-23 and 25-29 is/are rejected.

7) D Claim(s) is/are objected to.

8) D Claim(s) are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.

Application Papers

9) D The specification is objected to by the Examiner.

10) 13 The drawing(s) filed on 17 January 2002 is/are: a)E3 accepted or b)D objected to by the Examiner.

Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).

11) D The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.

Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119

12) D Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 1 19(a)-(d) or (0-
a)D All b)D Some * c)D None of:

1 .□ Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.

2. D Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. .

3. D Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage

application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.

Attachment(s)

1 ) S Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) 4) □ Interview Summary (PTO-413)

2) □ Notice of Draftsperson's Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948) Paper No(s)/Mail Date. .

3) □ Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449 or PTO/SB/08) 5) □ Notice of Informal Patent Application (PTO-1 52)

Paper No(s)/Mail Date . 6) Q Other: .

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

PTOL-326 (Rev. 1-04)

Office Action Summary

Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20050408

Application/Control Number: 09/669,680 Page 2

Art Unit: 2178

DETAILED ACTION

1 . This action is responsive to an RCE to application 09/669,680 filed on 2/14/2005.

2. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-23, and 25-29 are pending in the case. Claims 1,8, 15, 20, and 23 are
independent claims. Claims 2, 9, and 24 have been cancelled. Claim 30 remains
cancelled. Claims 1, 8, 15, 20, and 23 have been amended.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S. C. 112:

The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the
subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.

3. Claims 1, 8, 15, 20, and 23 refer to a "similar" clustering in the bottom three lines of the
claims; such reference is indefinite and a more precise elaboration of what is meant by
the term similar is required. Similarly, on the next line, "new, but related" is indefinite;
the claim does not specify how the dataset is related.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:

(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in
section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the
manner in which the invention was made.

4. Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lantrip
et al. (USPN 6,298,174 Bl— filing date 10/15/1999), hereinafter Lantrip, further in
view of Ruocco et al. (USPN 5,864,855— filing date 2/26/1996), hereinafter Ruocco.

/

Application/Control Number: 09/669,680 Page 3

Art Unit: 2178

5. Regarding independent claim 1, Lantrip discloses a method of clustering documents in
datasets (in col. 2, lines 39-42, document vectors are arranged into clusters) comprising:
clustering first documents in a first dataset to produce first document classes; (in col. 2,
lines 39-42, document vectors are arranged into clusters), and creating centroid seeds
based on said first document classes (in col. 2, lines 43-45, the invention finds centroids).
However, Lantrip fails to disclose clustering second documents in a second dataset using
said centroid seeds. However, in col. 14, lines 10-45 of Ruocco, Ruocco discloses in the
claim processing in parallel second datasets based on cluster information from previous
cluster vectors (see col. 14, lines 28-30) in order to gain the benefit of information from
previous clusters to improve analysis of subsequent datasets. Ruocco' s invention further
may be interpreted such that said second dataset has a similar clustering to that of said
first dataset (as the term "similar" is sufficiently broad that any two given datasets would
have some degree of similarity, see 35 U.S.C. 1 12 rejection, above.), further wherein said
second dataset comprises a new, but related dataset different than said first dataset (once
the first dataset is transformed, it is by definition a new, but related dataset). It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the
information contained in the centroid seeds from Lantrip for subsequent datasets as in
Ruocco in order to improve analysis of subsequent datasets.

6. Regarding dependent claim 2, Lantrip and Ruocco fail to disclose that said first dataset
and said second dataset are related. However, it was notoriously well known in the art at
the time of the invention that if one intends to process a dataset based on the results of
previously processing another dataset, the datasets should be related in order for the

Application/Control Number: 09/669,680 Page 4

Art Unit: 2178

results to be meaningful. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to have the first and second dataset be related in order for the
results to be meaningful.

7. Regarding dependent claim 3, Lantrip discloses that the clustering of said first
documents in said first dataset comprises: forming a first dictionary of most common
words in said first dataset (in col. 2, lines 30-40, Lantrip creates a database based on the
dataset, which would include the common words); generating a first vector space model
by counting, for each word in said first dictionary, a number of said first documents in
which said word occurs (in col. 2, lines 35-42, Lantrip creates a vector space model); and
clustering said first documents in said first dataset based on said first vector space model
(in col. 2, lines 39-42, Lantrip carries out clustering).

8. Regarding dependent claim 4, Lantrip fails to disclose a method further comprising
generating a second vector space model by counting, for each word in said first
dictionary, a number of said second document in which said word occurs. However,
Ruocco, in col. 14, lines 20-35, discloses generating such a vector space model for
multiple document sets in order to aid in the clustering analysis of the document sets. It
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
generate a second vector space model in the manner of Ruocco in Lantrip 5 s invention in
order to aid in the clustering analysis of the document sets.

9. Regarding dependent claim 5, Lantrip discloses that said creating of said centroid seeds
comprises: classifying said second vector space model using said first document classes
to produce a classified second vector space model (col 2, lines 39-42, the vector space

Application/Control Number: 09/669,680 Page 5

Art Unit: 2178

model is clustered); and determining a mean of vectors in each class in said classified
second vector space model, wherein said mean comprises said centroid seeds (col. 2,
lines 43-45, the centroid is the center of mass of the clusters).

10. Regarding dependent claim 6, Lantrip and Ruocco fail to disclose a method further
comprising forming a second dictionary of most common words in said second dataset;
generating a third vector space model by counting, for each word in said second
dictionary, a number of said second documents in which said word occurs; and clustering
said documents in said second dataset based on said third vector space model to produce
a second dataset cluster. However, this constitutes simply extending and repeating claim
3 to a third dataset, and it was notoriously well known in the art at the time of the
invention that it is useful to repeat steps for multiple datasets to take advantage of their
utility for subsequent data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to extend the steps of claim 3 to a subsequent dataset to gain
the benefits of the analysis for that dataset.

11. Regarding dependent claim 7, Lantrip discloses in col. 2, lines 39-45 that clustering of
said documents in said dataset using said centroid seeds produces an adapted dataset
cluster. However, Lantrip fails to disclose the use of multiple datasets and that the
method further comprises comparing classes in said adapted dataset cluster to classes in
said second dataset cluster; and adding classes to said adapted dataset cluster based on
said comparing. However, in col. 4, lines 61-67, Rocco deals with comparing multiple
dataset clusters in order to obtain more information about the relative status of the
datasets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the

Application/Control Number: 09/669,680 Page 6

Art Unit: 2178

invention to compare multiple dataset clusters in order to obtain more information about
the relative status of the datasets.

12. Regarding independent claim 8, it is a system that carries out the method of claim 1 ,
and is rejected under similar rationale.

13. Regarding dependent claim 10, it is a system that carries out the method of claim 3, and
is rejected under similar rationale.

14. Regarding dependent claim 11, it is a system that carries out the method of claim 4, and
is rejected under similar rationale.

1 5. Regarding dependent claim 12, it is a system that carries out the method of claim 5, and
is rejected under similar rationale.

16. Regarding dependent claim 13, it is a system that carries out the method of claim 6, and
is rejected under similar rationale.

17. Regarding dependent claim 14, it is a system that carries out the method of claim 7, and
is rejected under similar rationale.

18. Regarding independent claim 15, it is essentially analogous to claim 1 except that it
involves the steps of generating a vector space model of said second documents, which
Ruocco presents in col. 14, lines 27-36, and classifying said vector space model of said
second documents using said first document classes to produce a classified vector space
model, which Ruocco presents in col. 14, lines 27-36. It would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the Ruocco form of vector
space analyis in addition to the Lantrip material from the rejection of Claim 1 in order to

Application/Control Number: 09/669,680 Page 7

Art Unit: 2178

enhance the classifications of the two datasets. The result would produce an invention
that would serve to reject claim 15.

19. Regarding dependent claim 16, it is a method that modifies claim 15 in the same
manner that claim 3 modifies claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.

20. Regarding dependent claim 17, it is a method that modifies claim 15 in the same
manner that claim 4 modifies claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.

21 . Regarding dependent claim 18, it is a method that modifies claim 15 in the same
manner that claim 6 modifies claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.

22. Regarding dependent claim 19, it is a method that modifies claim 15 in the same
manner that claim 7 modifies claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.

23. Regarding independent claim 20, Lantrip discloses a method of clustering documents
comprising: forming a first dictionary of most common words in a first dataset (col. 2,
lines 30-35, Lantrip forms a first dictionary of common words); generating a first vector
space model by counting, for each word in said first dictionary, a number of said first
documents in which said words occurs (col. 2, lines 35-40, Lantrip forms vectors);
clustering said first documents in said first dataset based on said first vector space model
to produce first document classes (col. 2, lines 39-42, Lantrip forms clusters), and
determining a mena of vectors in each class in said classified second vector space model
to produce centroid seeds; (col. 2, lines 43-45, Lantrip forms centroid seeds) and
clustering documents in a second datasets using said centroid seeds (col. 2, lines 45-57,
Lantrip clusters using centroids). Lantrip fails to disclose generating a second vector
space model by counting, for each word in said first dictionary, and number of said

Application/Control Number: 09/669,680 Page 8

Art Unit: 2178

second documents in which said word occurs and classifying said second documents in
said second vector space model using said first document classes to produce a classified
second vector space model However, col. 14, lines 28-36 of Ruocco indicate that vector
clustering analysis may involve multiple datasets in order to gain the benefit of
information analysis from multiple sources. It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have vector clustering analysis
involve multiple datasets in order to gain the benefit of information analysis from
multiple sources.

24. Regarding dependent claim 21, it is a method that modifies claim 20 in the same
manner that claim 6 modifies claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.

25. Regarding dependent claim 22, it is a method that modifies claim 20 in the same
manner that claim 7 modifies claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.

26. Regarding independent claim 23, it is a program device embodying instruction to
perform a method that is equivalent to Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.

27. Regarding dependent claim 25, it is a program device embodying instruction to perform
a method that is equivalent to Claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale.

28. Regarding dependent claim 26, it is a program device embodying instruction to perform
a method that is equivalent to Claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.

29. Regarding dependent claim 27, it is a program device embodying instruction to perform
a method that is equivalent to Claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale,

30. Regarding dependent claim 28, it is a program device embodying instruction to perform
a method that is equivalent to Claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.

Application/Control Number: 09/669,680 Page 9

Art Unit: 2178

31. Regarding dependent claim 29, it is a program device embodying instruction to perform
a method that is equivalent to Claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.

Response to Amendment

32. Applicants arguments filed 1/13/2005 have been fully considered but they are not
persuasive.

33. Applicant alleges that neither reference teaches a second dataset. However, as noted in
the rejection, Ruocco teaches a dataset that goes though multiple stages, and those stages
constitute different datasets. When sets have distinct members, they are different sets.

34. Applicant further alleges that the prior art does not teach or suggest clustering second
documents in a second dataset using said centroid seeds, such that said second dataset has
a similar clustering to that of said first dataset. The Examiner notes that "similar" is a
vague and indefinite term (hence the rejection under 35 U.S. C. 112, second paragraph,
and hence the art is perfectly sufficient.

Conclusion

The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.

USPN 5,675,819 (filing date 6/16/1994)— Schuetze

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Jonathan D. Schlaifer whose telephone number is (571) 272-
4129. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:00, M-F.

Application/Control Number: 09/669,680

Page 10

Art Unit: 2178

If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Stephen Hong can be reached on (571) 272-4124. The fax phone number for the
organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.

Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR
system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).